FFP & SFP scopes both have advantages and disadvantages you have to find what works for you. I like SFP rifle scopes as I prefer to start around 3X power on my variables for the low end. With a FFP scope the reticle can be hard to see since the reticle size increases as power increases. The SFP reticle stays the same across all power ranges and as long as your top end power isn't too high, then the reticle never covers up too much target.

I think.when you get into scopes that have a starting power of 6-8X and a top end over 24X then FFP reticles are a better option. Plus on MIL or MOA ranging style reticles you are able to range estimate at any power setting. Whereas the SFP scope you set on the highest power to range.

I think all scopes should be first focal plane. Having said that, almost none are first focal plane and that annoys me. Ballistic reticles that only work on the highest power when I am trying to shoot in light conditions that prohibit using the highest power just seem foolish to me.

Only advantage the FFP reticle has over the SFP reticle is that you can estimate distance at any power setting, whereas SFP can only be estimated at one power setting. Unless you are estimating distance using the reticle, it makes no difference. I prefer SFP scopes because the thickness of the stadia do not change, which makes precision shots easier on high magnification. Just my $.02.

One problem with FFP is the reticle size changing.
Looking through a Vortex Viper 6-24,
at 6x the reticle was very thin, I could imagine lossing it trying to shoot a large dark object.
And then at 24x the reticle seemed almost too big.

Unless you are using the reticle for hold overs or ranging targets just get SFP as the scopes are generally cheaper.

I think all scopes should be first focal plane. Having said that, almost none are first focal plane and that annoys me. Ballistic reticles that only work on the highest power when I am trying to shoot in light conditions that prohibit using the highest power just seem foolish to me.

Calculate your own, for each magnification setting.
Every manufacturer that I have checked into has their reticle subtensions published for each magnification step in the scope.

I've calculated hold points for almost every scope I own, based on the most frequently used loads for those rifles. All it took was some decent "real world" velocity data, the reticle subtension figures, and 5-20 minutes of my time.

Or... do some research next time, before you buy the scope.

__________________"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

Calculate your own, for each magnification setting.
Every manufacturer that I have checked into has their reticle subtensions published for each magnification step in the scope.

I've calculated hold points for almost every scope I own, based on the most frequently used loads for those rifles. All it took was some decent "real world" velocity data, the reticle subtension figures, and 5-20 minutes of my time.

Or... do some research next time, before you buy the scope.

I don't see where the guy you quoted said he learned about the 2FP nonsense after buying a scope, I only understood him to say that he doesn't like them, and that there is a dearth of 1FP scopes... So the admonishment to do research before buying seems both misplaced and condescending.

That’s a lot to keep up with! Sitting at a bench with a calculator and all day to shoot, using a multiplier would probably work. Otherwise, you're better off shooting at high power (if you can) or changing mag after ranging.

If you don't range with your scope, FFP is useless...
As a long-range shooter at minute-of-angle size targets at KNOWN distances, I also find FFP scopes useless as the reticle covers my target at high magnification.

If you're a hunter, or long-range shooter where targets are at UNKNOWN range, then FFP may be for you.

That's it in a nutshell, but here's Vortex Optics explaining it in a video:

That’s a lot to keep up with! Sitting at a bench with a calculator and all day to shoot, using a multiplier would probably work. Otherwise, you're better off shooting at high power (if you can) or changing mag after ranging.

All you need are the subtensions of the reticle at the magnification settings that you're interested in and the ballistics of the load, to calculate for 'hold over' points. It only takes a couple minutes (if that) to do the math for multiple ranges.

If you want to use it as a 'ranging' reticle, you need: subtensions at the desired magnification(s), and the distances you care about.
It only takes about 2 minutes to calculate some reference dimensions, maybe a little more for complicated reticles.

__________________"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

Wherever the BDC thing (reticule or knob) is, it's only good for one muzzle velocity, one altitude, one set of atmospheric conditions and one bullet. Altitude and atmospheric conditions not being right can easily cause a 5 foot elevation error in shot impact at 1000 yards.

__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

I like both first and second plane scopes. Each has its benefits. On a SFP scope you can use the changing reticle size to customize your BDC reticle for loads and ranges by turning the power up or down.

On FFP scopes, as stated earlier, you can calculate range at any power. What most have not realized is that the reticle does not cover more of the target at higher magnification, it always subtends the same amount. The reticle grows with the target thus appearing to cover more of it. It does however cover a larger portion of the target as the target gets further away.

A SFP scope reticle shrinks relative to the target as power is increased, so it subtends less of the target at higher magnification.

__________________
You can't fix stupid....however ignorance can be cured through education!

I use both and honestly prefer FFP. Sure the reticle seems a tad thick at higher magnification, but i like the fact in low light situations i can back down to lower magnification and still use my reticle holds. That being said i can't see myself like a FFP below 3x mag i think it would be too small.

__________________"Combined synergy of a man and rifle is matchless, the steadiness of hand and acuity of vision, and finally the art of knowing how to make the rifle an extension of the body, all equate to the ultimate synthesis of man and machine."

I have both FFP and SFP scopes,and really prefer SFP. While ranging on a FFP scope is easier,you can range with a SFP at more than one magnification.
Ranging on a SFP 6-24x scope can be done at 6x-12x-18x-or 24x if you know how to do math.

In today's High Tech world,I don't even worry about it. I just tape ballistic data to my stock,and use my range finder.
Range it,Crank on the turret's,Pull the trigger. It's a pretty simple concept!

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.